Nabila Mallick (counsel) (direct access) For the v Respondent — 2019

Ms Edwards was employed by Pick Everard from 6 June 2018 as a Senior Construction Health & Safety Consultant and resigned on 4 July 2019. The tribunal dismissed her claims for direct sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and equal pay. It also held that any acts complained of outside the primary limitation period were out of time and that there was no continuing act or basis for a just and equitable extension.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew at an early stage that the claimant had dyslexia, but it rejected much of her account about the extent of disclosure and about the start-of-employment documents. In particular, it found that the alleged 5 June 2018 letter referring to a promised Associate appointment was not written or sent at the time claimed, but was created later in March 2019. It also found there had been only a general discussion about promotion prospects and review after probation, not a specific promise that she would become an Associate.

On the Associate recruitment process, the tribunal found the claimant was not already doing the Associate role. It accepted that the Associate post involved line management, appraisals, deputising and business development responsibilities that the Senior role did not. The tribunal found that the internal and external candidates were given a genuine opportunity to compete for the post, that the interview process was real and not predetermined, and that the claimant's lower score was explained by the evidence on management and business development experience and by her conduct in interview rather than by sex or disability. It also rejected her allegation that she had been given a new job description without consultation.

The tribunal found that the complaints about oral instructions, file-saving, phone use, the fee proposal, the disciplinary investigation and the disciplinary hearing were not made out as discrimination. It held that the claimant had not shown a substantial disadvantage from the alleged PCPs for reasonable adjustments purposes, and that the respondent was entitled to be sceptical about the late reliance on disability in relation to file-saving. It also held that the claimant resigned before any dismissal and was not constructively dismissed. On equal pay, the tribunal concluded that the Senior and Associate roles were not like work because the differences in management responsibility and autonomy were of practical importance, and that any pay difference was explained by a genuine material factor unrelated to sex.